Thank you, Rhuiden. I didn't quote Martin Luther to discuss what he said, what he meant, and what he really meant (that would make a nice new thread); I quoted him as an example of Christian Philosophy, or a way to use philosophy to argue against (or pro, but of course) the Dogma-of-the-day.

I understand that you did not intend to debate what Luther meant but you cannot take what he said without keeping the context of his overall message.

Going back to Kopio's original question:

"Once a sinner, always a sinner." (Bardo de Saldo.)

I believe this to be a Biblically sound statement. It is central to one of the main teachings in the Bible. If we were not sinners, or not always a sinner, then we would have no need for a Saviour. I am unsure about how to debate this because I see it as simple truth.

I believe this to be a Biblically sound statement. It is central to one of the main teachings in the Bible. If we were not sinners, or not always a sinner, then we would have no need for a Saviour. I am unsure about how to debate this because I see it as simple truth.

[/quote]

That would entirely depend on what you consider a sinner. I think you forget the most central teaching of Jezusl: God is God of the living. He does not want us spent our live repenting and studying the bible for every possible rule. Look at how many biblical rules Jezus rebelled against that are in the Torah, e.g. regarding resting on the Sabbath.
Remember the great commandments: the first is to love God above everthing else, and the second is equal to first: love your neighbour like you love yourself.
It is alright to love yourself, to make a mistake, to enjoy life. Let the dead bury the dead, as Jezus said.
Paul writes: I do not know the testament by the letter, but by the spirit. For the letter kills but the spirit brings life.
In the Lords prayer a most central point is to deliver us from anger. The whole gospel is about having peace with yourself, inside you, and carrying this over onto others. Not to spend your life weeping you are a sinner and praying for forgiveness and mumbling what a terrible person you must be just because you are human.
Sin is to transgress your conscience, not to break a law, whether it is in the bible or otherwise.

Kasper wrote:That would entirely depend on what you consider a sinner. I think you forget the most central teaching of Jezusl: God is God of the living. He does not want us spent our live repenting and studying the bible for every possible rule.

True, the dead have no hope because their fate was sealed at death. But, I disagree, God does want us to continually be in meditation upon his Word. This is how we grow closer to Him.

Kasper wrote:In the Lords prayer a most central point is to deliver us from anger.

Do you mean deliver us from evil? There is no mention of anger in the Lord's Prayer. See Matthew 6:9-13

Kasper wrote: The whole gospel is about having peace with yourself, inside you, and carrying this over onto others. Not to spend your life weeping you are a sinner and praying for forgiveness and mumbling what a terrible person you must be just because you are human.

I believe the whole gospel is about understanding that we are not worthy of God's grace and are in need of a Saviour. We can only come to this understanding when we become aware of how depraved our true nature is. We must come to a point of brokeness. What is great about the teaching of Jesus is that once we come to this awareness and ask Him to be our Lord and Saviour, we no longer have to dwell on our past because He no longer sees it.

Kasper wrote:Sin is to transgress your conscience, not to break a law, whether it is in the bible or otherwise.

Where does your conscience (or sense of right and wrong) come from? It comes from God. He made the rules. Sin is to trangress Him.

Rhuiden, first of all my apologies for the tone of my previous post. It was rather antagonistic and that is not the way to have a discussion . My apologies.

I do disagree on quiet a few points with you however:

The knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, was not given to us by God. In fact, it was forbidden to us by God. The first ‘sin’ was to acquire the knowledge of right and wrong, and thereby the knowledge of sin.

You see, to me this clearly is a prayer for internal peace, for peace of mind. That God may let go of our indiscressions just as we may let go of our grudges towards others. That we may not be led into temptation and be delivered from “po/nhros”

I see we disagree on the meaning of the word “po/nhros”. Now my greek dictionary is greek-dutch, not greek-english unfortunately, but it gives for "ponh/ros", according to my translation: “connected with suffering, unhappy, grim, angry, dangerous, ethically wrong.”

You may well add “evil” to this list if you so desire, the definition of ponhros, however, is clearly an internal matter. It is not some outside evil that we want God to ward off, it is anger/unhappiness/suffering/evil within ourselves.

You will see this ties in very nicely with the first part of my post: although God forbade it, we acquired the knowledge of right and wrong. This threw our soul/mind into turmoil. To be saved, what Jezus himself prayed for, means to have peace of mind: a clear conscience.

Kasper wrote:Rhuiden, first of all my apologies for the tone of my previous post. It was rather antagonistic and that is not the way to have a discussion :oops: . My apologies.

I apologize also if my post seemed equally antagonistic. It is never my intention to cause a discussion to deteriorate into unpleasantness.

Kasper wrote:The knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, was not given to us by God. In fact, it was forbidden to us by God. The first ‘sin’ was to acquire the knowledge of right and wrong, and thereby the knowledge of sin.

I have a different take on this. Our first sin was to be disobedient to God's commands. He told Adam & Eve that they may eat of any tree in the garden except one. That was their only "law" and they broke it. The consequenses of their sin was that they received an understanding of right and wrong or a "knowledge of sin" and that this knowledge would be passed on to their offspring (us).

I am sorry but I cannot debate the Greek with you. I have not yet began to study it but I hope to sometime after I get a decent grasp on Latin. In fact the only Greek I know is the letters to my (and a few other) college fraternity.

Kasper wrote:To be saved, what Jezus himself prayed for, means to have peace of mind: a clear conscience.

I agree with this to a degree. Peace of mind comes as a result of salvation but is not salvation itself. The knowledge that all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven is very powerful and liberating.

"I believe this to be a Biblically sound statement. It is central to one of the main teachings in the Bible. If we were not sinners, or not always a sinner, then we would have no need for a Saviour. I am unsure about how to debate this because I see it as simple truth." (Rhuiden.)

Does that mean that you agree with my statement? If you do, that idea will become dogma between you and I (so be careful).

"Also, in a previous post you said something along the lines that those who define sin also define the consequences of sin [...]" (Rhuiden.)

I said, and say, that those who teach sin also teach what should be done after sinning. (No need to apologize.)

"If this was your meaning I would agree. You seemed to imply, though, that men define sin and its consequenses. I would not agree with this. Sin, and it consequenses, is defined by God. Therefore, "the ethics of sin" are set by God. We are ultimately responsible to Him for our behaviour and should devote ourselves to the study of His word and finding His plan for our lives." (Rhuiden.)

Men define sin and its consequences. Men are not God. Therefore, God doesn't define sin and its consequences.

God doesn't define (He's Infinite! ). Some men can't get enough of defining (to others ) sin and its consequences. Therefore, men define sin and its consequences.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:Men define sin and its consequences. Men are not God. Therefore, God doesn't define sin and its consequences.

God doesn't define (He's Infinite! :wink: ). Some men can't get enough of defining (to others :wink: ) sin and its consequences. Therefore, men define sin and its consequences.

I don't follow your logic in the first statement. I agree that some men try to define sin and its consequences. I also agree that men are not God. I don't see how you come to your conclusion. Just because men define sin and men are not God does not mean that God doesn't also define sin.

I will agree that there are many men who "can't get enough of defining sin". They do it in an attempt to controll others. It is shameful.

only in an ambiguous sense. to define is to give the genus and differentia of something. religious people might say that god "gives" the genus animal and the differentia rationality, i.e. gives 'unto the world', but you don't need to heave these things into existence yourself to 'give' the genus and differentia of man, i.e. to define man.

the whole thing about god being infinite has also got philosophers into a tangle, particularly the german geniuses like leibniz and hegel: which type of infinite? as there are several types.

(A part-Christian, Rhuiden, is someone who bets on his 92% chance of dying with enough time to make a last-hour confession and act of faith.)

That would then be an act of desperation, not an act of faith. (Either that or a 'just-to-be-on-the-safe-side,-you-never-know' act.)

I agree Bert, I have always been skeptical of death-bed or late in life professions of faith. I do not question them openly because only God knows a persons heart and I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt.

I say men define what sin is, as there is no reason for me to believe that anyone else does. But we don't just define it at random (well, sometimes). In general what we define as 'sin' (sin just being some immoral action) are actions that prevent society from functioning properly. When you have a society then some people 'who love to make up sins' might add a few more rediculous ones, but most immoral actions are ones that simply prevent things running smoothly and fairly. I don't require a God to tell me what is bad behaviour.

I say men define what sin is, as there is no reason for me to believe that anyone else does. But we don't just define it at random (well, sometimes). In general what we define as 'sin' (sin just being some immoral action) are actions that prevent society from functioning properly. When you have a society then some people 'who love to make up sins' might add a few more rediculous ones, but most immoral actions are ones that simply prevent things running smoothly and fairly. I don't require a God to tell me what is bad behaviour.

Hi Emma,

Thanks for participating. I understand what you are saying but for you to know what is bad behaviour or sin, someone had to teach you. That was probably your parents but who taught them. Most likely it was their parents. But who taught them? It is "theoretically" possible to trace back to the first person who ever decided that something was a sin. Who was this? There are only two possibilities that I can think of: God (the creater of everything) or a man who wanted to give order to or control society.

Once we know the origin of the teaching, then we can evaluate the validity of it.

Rhuiden wrote:Thanks for participating. I understand what you are saying but for you to know what is bad behaviour or sin, someone had to teach you. That was probably your parents but who taught them. Most likely it was their parents. But who taught them? It is "theoretically" possible to trace back to the first person who ever decided that something was a sin. Who was this? There are only two possibilities that I can think of: God (the creater of everything) or a man who wanted to give order to or control society.

You don't think it's possible for many people to figure out what right and wrong are without being told?

Thanks for participating. I understand what you are saying but for you to know what is bad behaviour or sin, someone had to teach you. That was probably your parents but who taught them. Most likely it was their parents. But who taught them? It is "theoretically" possible to trace back to the first person who ever decided that something was a sin. Who was this? There are only two possibilities that I can think of: God (the creater of everything) or a man who wanted to give order to or control society.

Once we know the origin of the teaching, then we can evaluate the validity of it.

Rhuiden

What you say does not really make much sense to me. I mean if that was so, how come morals change? We learn from our parents, yes, but we don't just take their morals and make them our own completely. If that was so, morals would not change would they? I would have the same set of morals that my great-great-great-great-great (and so on) grandfather had. But I don't even share my grandfather's sense of morals, so how can your statement be true that it's all just passed on from parents to children? I don't even think the sense of morals I had just 6 years ago is the same I have now. For example my parents aren't vegetarian, noneof my friends were, but even as a 9 year old I was able to tell my parents and friends who were all against me becoming a vegetarian, that I thought I was doing the right thing, because I had spent time thinking on the subject. Society as a whole does pay a huge role too as does your own mind. We can make choices, we aren't stuck to have to stick to a set of values layed down tens of thousands of years ago.
And what about the Greeks and Romans before Christianity? Many of their moral values are not Chrisitian ones. Where did they get their morals from if not from own thought?
Humans did come up with them theirselves, imagine a small group of men living in a small camp in a wood ten of thousands of years ago. One man kills another the others were friends with. Now what happens? People will be upset and hurt, because they liked that person a lot and now he's gone because someone else has killed him. Our little society has been disrupted, something has gone amiss and the action responsible therefore (the murder) was responsible for it. That's what I meant when I said that actions that are harmful to a society will be classed as immoral normally. That's how morals started out. This murder is a danger and a disruption to society, so it's bad, ie immoral.

I would suggest that the morals taught by God and written in His Word have not changed since the beginning of time. What has changed is mans interpretation, implementation, or accectance/rejection of God's teachings. These changes may occur over a long period of time or one generation (think the 1960's).

Before Christianity, God's teachings were still the same. They were passed down from Adam & Eve. The successive generations then chose they way they would follow the teachings, if at all. The same as today. And, as today, I am sure there were those who chose to distort or change the teaching to fit their purpose.

Rhuiden wrote:Thanks for participating. I understand what you are saying but for you to know what is bad behaviour or sin, someone had to teach you. That was probably your parents but who taught them. Most likely it was their parents. But who taught them? It is "theoretically" possible to trace back to the first person who ever decided that something was a sin. Who was this? There are only two possibilities that I can think of: God (the creater of everything) or a man who wanted to give order to or control society.

You don't think it's possible for many people to figure out what right and wrong are without being told?

No, I believe that their had to be someone to teach what is right and wrong.

I would suggest that the morals taught by God and written in His Word have not changed since the beginning of time. What has changed is mans interpretation, implementation, or accectance/rejection of God's teachings. These changes may occur over a long period of time or one generation (think the 1960's).

Before Christianity, God's teachings were still the same. They were passed down from Adam & Eve. The successive generations then chose they way they would follow the teachings, if at all. The same as today. And, as today, I am sure there were those who chose to distort or change the teaching to fit their purpose.

Rhuiden

Well that is a story you like to believe, but it is hardly a philosophical argument Rhuiden, it's a story.

edit: but to reply to your story: you say that the greeks and romans just interpreted God's teachings which were handed down from generation to generation differently if they paid any heed to them at all. They had their own morals, you accept that they may have come up with them theirselves, where there paid no heed to God's wishes. So you accept that people can come up with moral systems theirselves. Why then is it at all necessary to think that there must have been a first set of morals if humans are able to 'make up morals'?

"And, as today, I am sure there were those who chose to distort or change the teaching to fit their purpose." (Dogma) Therefore: "Teachings are changed or distorted by Man (Woman for the ladies) for whatever reasons." [Related reading: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."]

"The Bible is God's Word and Complete Works." (Dogma)

That was generous, wasn't it Rhuiden? Still, Men define sin. Your theory works with easy questions such as: Is it sinful to kill? You look it up in the Bible, come up with the 10 Commandments, and conclude: God defines murder as sinful. Great. Ave María Purísima. It gets trickier with questions such as: Is it sinful to like Elton John? You look in your Bible Index, and can't find an entry for 'Elton John' or 'Art of Gays'. In order to find an answer in the Bible, you have to look for quotes in it that you can interpret to mean what your heart (in the best of cases) wants to hear.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:That was generous, wasn't it Rhuiden? Still, Men define sin. Your theory works with easy questions such as: Is it sinful to kill? You look it up in the Bible, come up with the 10 Commandments, and conclude: God defines murder as sinful. Great. Ave María Purísima. It gets trickier with questions such as: Is it sinful to like Elton John? You look in your Bible Index, and can't find an entry for 'Elton John' or 'Art of Gays'. In order to find an answer in the Bible, you have to look for quotes in it that you can interpret to mean what your heart (in the best of cases) wants to hear.

I have agreed, and still agree, that men define sin. My point though, still remains: the initial and ultimate definer of sin is God.

Yes, I use the Bible as the final authority on all issues. Some things are very specific and some things are vague. It is my duty as a Christian to study and meditate on God's word so that I may be able to discern its teachings. I am sure that you are aware that homosexuality is discussed in the Bible. God teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It also teaches that God loves those that practice that sin just the same as He loves me when I sin.

There are many issues we are faced with today that are not mentioned specifically in the Bible but by following the principles taught in the Bible, we know how we should respond as Christians. That is one of the beautiful things about the Bible, it is as valid today as when the books were written.

"I am sure that you are aware that homosexuality is discussed in the Bible." (Rhuiden)

I am not. I haven't read the whole Bible (it gets boring pretty soon), and I only remember, homo wise, God "defining" Sodomites as Baddie (quite vaguely), and Men "redefining" for my benefit the actual gymnastics involved in being Baddie Sodoma-style: the second-oldest profession in the world.

Your argument proves my point: You take the Spirit of the Gospels, say, which is God's Defined Word, (blessed be the Holy Spirit), and use it as Inspiration to REDEFINE the Finer Points. As you said before, God's Definition is True, but Man's Redefinition can be faulty. One should be humble with redefinitions, because even the Holiest of Men have been blinded by God.

Yes, some parts of the Bible are quite boring and difficult to read. I have trouble myself with the geneologies and the rituals in the Old Testiment. Still, I would encourage you to take the time to read it. I would suggest you start in the New Testiment then go back and read the Old Testiment.

Bardo de Saldo wrote:Your argument proves my point: You take the Spirit of the Gospels, say, which is God's Defined Word, (blessed be the Holy Spirit), and use it as Inspiration to REDEFINE the Finer Points. As you said before, God's Definition is True, but Man's Redefinition can be faulty. One should be humble with redefinitions, because even the Holiest of Men have been blinded by God.

Yes, if me try to REDEFINE God's word then it will be faulty because men are flawed but the application of God's definintion is not the same as REDEFINITION. My previous post was meant to show application not redefinition. Sorry if I was unclear on this point.

Goethe once said "if I had to go to prison and had to choose one book to take withme so it would be the bible" And Goethe was really demanding concerning writtings and books !

But back to the main topic.I think to become aware what is a sin and how to define it is not in full theaccomplishment of humans. It´s all the same about consciousness in it´s initially it´s comes from a creator. To say the definitions of what is a sin and what is not is totally human based is as short-sighted as to say the electric current comes from the wall socket not seeing the power plant standing behind !

To say the definitions of what is a sin and what is not is totally human based is as short-sighted as to say the electric current comes from the wall socket not seeing the power plant standing behind !

Another dogmatic statement. Come on, you can do better Peter!
And it's a bad analogy too. The set up you propose is that humans are stuck in house, stupid ones at that, with no education concerning electricity and the modern world, who just think it comes out of the wall socket and never start to wonder if it might come from somewhere else. You can say that we are 'uneducated' because we indeed don't know everything and that we are stuck inside, because we can't think beyond the barriers placed by our mind's make-up. But while those people have no means to work out where the electricity may be coming from, because electricity is neither a part of them nor where they ever electric ( ), we are the one's who think about right and wrong, who define it and live with it. It does not exist without us. Electric currents can very well exist without us, where in this world is there justice, except where we attempt to create it (and not even then are we that successful). There is not such thing as good or evil in the natural word, we make that definition. Therefore it is something that comes from within us, it is in us, in our minds and so we can think about it and understand it if we analyse our behaviour and our way of thinking about things. It is a human thing and so we do have a means of working on this problem and a conclusion philosophically.
And I have already laid down my argument as to why there is no reason to assume that there was any need for someone or something to plant that idea into our minds in the first place. We are capable of thinking up such things ourselves.

I'll add: "All humans are flawed, including you and I." Proof: pick up Don Quixote (my bible) and find the Chapters and Verses yourself. Then learn the Refranero Español (a record of popular wisdom-common sense). You are still redeemable: We can make a good Spanish Humanist out of you! (Not incompatible with Christianity Well Understood.)

.

"if I had to go to prison and had to choose one book to take with
me so it would be the bible" (Goethe)

I think, copain, that you overlook the main word in his sentence: PRISON.

For your first question:
To borrow the words of Taoists, when you do not abide by Tao, your criterion of morallity is out of phase with your natural desire, or instinct. But when you learn to abide by Tao, there is no distinction between your instinct and the morality. And you often get the sense of sin when your behavior falls between the two. Still, you can violate some of the rules of the society, Sometimes it can be trivial, and sometimes it can be serious. But is does not eat your consience. You just get mas o menos sorry for the other community members. You try to change some of your behavior according to the natural harmony of your vicinity of social interactions. But it is different from the heart-eating sense of sin as found in the Christianity. There is no special rule in abiding in Tao. You just discover that you are with Tao. And the sufferings are gone.

According to Bible, men, since Adam(or rather, since Eve), became equal to God in the ability to know what is good and what is bad, thanks to the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Bad. It is a very strange thing that the only group of people who don't believe this story are Christians.

mingshey wrote:According to Bible, men, since Adam(or rather, since Eve), became equal to God in the ability to know what is good and what is bad, thanks to the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Bad. It is a very strange thing that the only group of people who don't believe this story are Christians.

Men did not become equal to God in any way. They received the knowledge of good and evil but it cost them their direct fellowship with
God (at least until Jesus came).